Re: Aggressive route flap dampening

[Rusty Zickefoose <rusty () mci net>]

Michael,
        I believe the primary purpose of the /19 filtering was to reduce the 
size of the route table.  The increased stability this caused was just 
a happy side affect.


> Can aggressive route flap dampening replace the need for /19 prefix filtering?
> For instance, could the old Class C space be filtered on the /24 boundary
> if this sort of flap dampening was put in place? Here is Paul Ferguson's
> comments from the pagan mailing list:
>
> > Again, I mention the fact that aggressive route-flap dampening
> > could be used in the place of prefix length traffic filters, but
> > someone/something needs to educate the latter group to implement
> > a less draconian method of protecting themselves from misbehaving
> > announcements. If I am not remiss, the predominate reasoning for
> > filtering on /19's and longer was an assumption that smaller
> > announcements were responsible for the majority of the routing
> > instability, and that simply blocking these announcements at
> > an arbitrary prefix length would be the simplest way to 'fix'
> > the problem. This may be true, but an alternate method of
> > approach for this problem could solve all of this squabbling
> > once and for all, at least in regard to this issue.
>
> ********************************************************
> Michael Dillon                    voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Senior Systems Architect            fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC.              http://www.priori.net
>
> "The People You Know.  The People You Trust."
> ********************************************************

-- 
Rusty

---------------------------------------------------------------------
|  MCI Communications                                 rusty () mci net |
|  Internet MCI                                   note the Reply-to |
|  PGP Key: DB183CA5                                                |
---------------------| http://infopage.mci.net |---------------------